LIB  RAR.Y 
O  F  -TH  E 


Of    ILLINOIS 
630.7 

146* 

rxo.49-60 


AGRICULTURE 


m 

r  r  $     A 


NOTICE:  Return  or  renew  all  Library  Materials!  The  Minimum  Fee  for 
each  Lost  Book  is  $50.00. 

The  person  charging  this  material  is  responsible  for 
its  return  to  the  library  from  which  it  was  withdrawn 
on  or  before  the  Latest  Date  stamped  below. 

Theft,  mutilation,  and  underlining  of  books  are  reasons  for  discipli- 
>  *  >       nary  action  and  may  result  in  dismissal  from  the  University. 
To  renew  call  Telephone  Center,  333-8400 

UNIVERSITY    OF    ILLINOIS    LIBRARY    AT    URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 


24*99 


L161— O-1096 


nbi 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS. 

Agricultural  Experiment  Station. 

URBANA,   FEBRUARY,  1898 


BULLETIN  No.  50. 


The  Cost  of  Production  of  Corn  and  Oats  in  Illinois  in  1896. 

[PREFATORY  NOTE. — This  inquiry  into  the  cost  of  raising  corn 
and  oats  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  was  suggested  as  an  interesting  piece  of 
work  in  statistical  investigation  for  an  advanced  student  in  economics. 
Moreover,  there  was  so  much  discrepancy  between  the  figures  assigned 
in  various  statistical  publications  and  those  commonly  reported  among 
farmers  that  it  was  thought  desirable  to  make  as  careful  and  extensive 
an  inquiry  as  possible  into  the  facts.  The  work  was  assigned  under  my 
direction  to  Mr.  Nathan  A.  Weston,  then  Instructor  in  the  Preparatory 
School  of  the  University  of  Illinois  and  a  student  of  economics  in  the 
Graduate  School.*  The  excellence  of  the  work  as  now  published  is  evi- 
dence of  the  wisdom  of  the  selection  of  the  worker  and  of  the  care  and 
good  judgment  with  which  he  performed  his  task.  With  the  exception  of 
occasional  suggestions  from  the  members  of  the  staff  of  the  Agricultural 
Experiment  Station,  and  some  insertions  by  myself,  the  work  is  Mr. 
Weston's  own. 

The  limits  of  the  scope  of  the  inquiry  should  be  emphasized.  The 
results  presented  concern  the  corn  and  oats'  products  of  Illinois  in  the 
season  of  1896  only.  The  figures  of  cost  in  one  year  cannot  be  used 
for  any  other;  for,  of  course,  the  cost  varies  with  the  yield  and  the 
season.  A  given  total  of  expenditure  in  a  season  when  the  yield  of 
corn  was  40  bushels  to  the  acre  would  give  a  very  different  cost  per  unit 
of  measure  from  what  it  would  give  when  the  yield  was  60  bushels. 

*  Mr.  Weston  is  now  fellow  in  economics  in  the  University  of  Wisconsin. 

53 


54  BULLETIN  NO.   50.  \February, 

This  fact  shows  the  fallacy  of  the  tables  of  some  of  the  Illinois  crop 
reports,  which  copy  for  a  series  of  years  the  figures  of  cost  obtained 
only  in  the  first  of  the  series. 

It  is  not  thought  necessary  to  enter  here  into  a  discussion  of  the 
theoretical  question  of  what  constitutes  cost  of  production.  The  matter 
of  practical  interest  is  to  determine  what  has  been  the  total  outlay  made 
by  the  farmer  in  order  to  place  on  the  market  a  bushel  of  the  cereal  in 
question.  That  outlay  comprises  rent,  labor,  expenditure  for  seed,  and, 
perhaps,  fertilizer,  interest,  and  taxes  on  tools  and  other  farm  equip- 
ment, and  also  depreciation  of  the  same.  Taxes  on  the  land  need  not 
be  included  because  they  ordinarily  fall  on  the  land-owner  as  such. 
Rent  should  not  be  excluded,  as  it  sometimes  is,  on  the  mistaken  appli- 
cation of  the  economic  theory  that  "rent  is  not  an  element  of  cost." 
This  doctrine  does  not  mean  that  "a  tenant  farmer  need  not  take 
his  rent  into  account  when  making  up  his  year's  balance  sheet.  When 
he  is  doing  that  he  must  count  his  rent  just  in  the  same  way  as  he  does 
any  other  expense." 

While  Mr.  Weston's  investigation  was  under  way  we  heard  that  the 
Orange  Judd  Farmer  was  making  a  similar  inquiry,  extending  it,  how- 
ever, to  eight  states.  The  statistician  of  that  journal  kindly  sent  us  his 
data  for  Illinois, — a  dozen  or  fifteen  replies  in  all,  I  think, — for  our  use. 
It  seemed  inadvisable  to  use  these  on  account  of  differences  in  the 
form  of  inquiry.  The  results  of  the  investigation  of  the  Orange  Judd 
Farmer  have  since  been  published,  and  the  conclusion  drawn  from  them 
that  corn  was  grown  in  the  season  in  question  at  a  cost  per  bushel  as 
low  as  6  cents.  That  is  much  below  the  cost  arrived  at  in  this  bulletin. 
If  we  omit  rent  the  cost  per  bushel  through  husking  would,  according 
to  this  inquiry,  be  about  8  cents. 

It  should  be  noted  that  the  corn  crop  of  1896  was  above  the 
average,  and  that  the  average  yield  per  acre  on  the  farms  reported  in 
the  following  statistics  is  54  bushels. 

No  addition  is  made  herein  for  taxes.  As  said  already,  in  our 
opinion  taxes  on  equipment  only  should  be  counted  in,  and  our  data 
on  these  were  too  meager  and  uncertain  for  use.  In  any  event  the 
amount  to  be  added  therefor  to  the  cost  would  probably  not  exceed  6 
or  7  cents  per  acre,  or  a  little  over  i  mill  per  bushel. 

It  would  be  very  desirable  if  a  properly  conducted  inquiry  into  the 
cost  of  production  of  the  leading  cereals  could  be  made  for  a  series  of 
years.  If  undertaken  under  the  direction  of  competent  statisticians  some 
light  might  be  thrown  on  the  vexed  question  of  "the  distress  of  the  agri- 
cultural classes." 

DAVID  KINLEY,  Professor  of  Economics, 

University  of  Illinois.] 


1898.]  CORN  AND  OATS,  COST  OF  PRODUCTION,  1896.  55 

PREVIOUS   INVESTIGATIONS. 

Considerable  has  been  said  and  written  about  the  cost  of  produc- 
ing the  leading  cereals,  but  only  a  few  really  systematic  inquiries  into 
the  question  have  been  made.  These  have  usually  been  based  upon  the 
estimates  of  interested  correspondents,  and  not  upon  the  reports  of 
work  actually  done  by  those  engaged  in  production.  Such  reports, 
while  interesting,  are,  however,  of  but  little  scientific  value  because  it 
is  impossible  to  tell  how  far  they  are  mere  guesses. 

In  view  of  the  great  fall  in  the  prices  of  farm  products,  and  the  wide- 
spread and  prolonged  agricultural  depression  of  recent  years,  the  ques- 
tion of  cost  of  production  of  agricultural  products  is  of  great  interest 
and  practical  importance.  The  question  as  to  what  crops  are  most 
profitable,  is,  of  course,  the  leading  one  with  producers.  It  cannot  be 
denied  that  farmers  in  some  sections  of  the  country,  being  insufficiently 
acquainted  with  the  problem  of  cost  of  production,  and  not  knowing 
the  exact  state  of  the  world's  supply,  have  persisted  in  growing  certain 
kinds  of  grain  when  something  else  could  have  been  produced  with 
much  greater  profit. 

The  present  investigation  was  begun  in  order  to  secure,  if  possible, 
accurate  information  on  the  expense  of  raising  the  corn  and  oats'  crops 
of  1896  in  the  state  of  Illinois.  Before  giving  the  details  of  the 
inquiry,  it  will  be  interesting  to  review  briefly  some  previous  attempts 
to  determine  the  cost  of  production  of  these  grains.  Hardly  worthy 
of  mention  are  numerous  statements  of  individual  accounts  and  experi- 
ments relating  to  the  subject,  to  be  found  in  the  agricultural  reports  of 
the  various  states  and  the  United  States,  running  in  time  throughout 
the  past  thirty  years.  For  instance,  on  page  450  of  The  Report  of  the 
United  States  Commissioner  of  Agriculture  for  1870,  Mr.  J.  C.  Bur- 
roughs makes  a  statement  concerning  the  cost  of  growing  corn  in  Madi- 
son County,  Illinois.  The  experiment  was  on  a  field  of  twenty  acres, 
which  yielded  sixty  bushels  to  the  acre.  The  various  items  of  cost — use 
of  land,  labor,  etc.,  are  given  in  the  report  as  amounting  to  $322.00, 
or  $ 1 6. 10  per  acre,  and  about  27  cents  per  bushel.  Interest  attaches 
to  experiments  like  that  of  Mr.  Burroughs  because  they  are  the  earliest 
attempts  to  solve  the  problem  of  expense  of  production.  The  experi- 
ments are  too  few  and  too  unevenly  distributed  geographically,  and  the 
reports  are  too  meager  in  details  and  too  indefinite  in  statement,  to  be  of 
much  value  for  comparison  with  results  of  later  and  more  systematic 
inquiries. 

In  1885,  1886  and  1887,  inquiries  concerning  the  cost  of  produc- 
ing corn  and  oats  in  Illinois  were  made  by  the  state  department  of  agri- 
culture.* The  published  results  consist  simply  of  a  series  of  tables, 

*Crop  Reports,  111.  State  B'd  of  Agr.,  1886,  1887. 


56  BULLETIN  NO.   50.  [.February, 

without  detailed  description  or  analysis.  The  tables  show  returns  for  all 
the  counties  of  the  state,  indicate  the  acreage  as  returned  by  the  asses- 
sors, the  yield  per  acre  in  bushels,  the  total  yield  in  bushels,  the  price  per 
bushel,  the  value  of  crop,  the  cost  of  production  per  acre,  the  total  cost 
of  production,  and  the  profit,  or  loss,  on  the  crop.  The  data  as  to  cost, 
from  which  the  tables  were  compiled,  consisted  chiefly  of  estimates  by 
correspondents  of  the  department.  There  is  nothing  to  show  that  any 
separate  account  was  taken  of  the  individual  elements  which  enter  into 
cost  of  production;  and,  in  fact,  there  is  nothing  to  show  that  the  cost 
of  production  per  acre  for  the  counties  is  anything  other  than  an  esti- 
mate. The  purpose  of  the  inquiry  appears  to  be  to  show  the  relation  be- 
tween the  value  of  the  crop  and  the  cost  of  its  production.  This  is  done 
without  any  apparent  consciousness  of  the  fact  that  in  such  an  account 
the  item  of  cost  of  production  is  of  prime  importance.  The  cost  of 
production  per  acre  in  the  series  of  tables  given  in  the  reports  of  1886 
and  1887  is  practically  the  same.  The  few  variations  that  occur  are  so 
slight  as  to  be  unworthy  of  notice.  It  is  significant  that  the  Crop 
Reports  give  the  same  figures  for  cost  of  production,  for  every  county, 
year  after  year. 

The  next  investigation  of  a  similar  nature  was  undertaken  by  the 
United  States  Department  of  Agriculture  in  1893.  It  was  prompted  by 
numerous  inquiries  relative  to  the  cost  of  raising  our  principal  cereals. 
Corn  and  wheat  were  chosen  as  the  subjects  of  inquiry.  In  the  case 
of  corn  the  items  of  cost  were  enumerated  as  follows:  Rent  of  land, 
manure,  preparing  ground,  planting,  cultivating,  gathering,  housing,  and 
marketing.  The  table  as  compiled  shows  the  average  and  total  cost 
under  each  of  these  items,  for  individual  states,  groups  of  states,  and 
the  country  as  a  whole.  The  results  were  derived  from  individual  esti- 
mates made  by  over  28,000  practical  farmers.  These  results  were 
checked  by  replies  received  from  over  4,000  experts,  who  were  graduates 
of  various  agricultural  colleges  and  engaged  in  farming. 

Further  work  of  this  kind  has  been  done  by  the  Illinois  Depart- 
ment of  Agriculture  during  the  present  year,  and  the  results  were  pub- 
lished in  the  Statistical  Report  of  The  Illinois  State  Board  of  Agricul- 
ture for  May.  Like  previous  reports  by  this  department,  this  is  made 
up  entirely  of  a  series  of  tables,  without  discussion  or  analysis  thereof, 
or  any  explanation  of  the  method  of  their  construction.  In  fact,  the 
subject  is  barely  mentioned  in  the  beginning  of  the  report  where  it  is 
stated  that,  "It  is  impossible  to  obtain  the  exact  cost  of  production, 
but  the  tables  are  prepared  from  the  accounts  and  estimates  of  practical 
farmers,  which  have  been  carefully  examined,  compared  and  revised 
before  presenting  them  to  the  public  in  this  form."  It  would  have 
added  much  to  the  interest  and  usefulness  of  the  effort  if  a  more  detailed 


l8y8.]  CORN    AND    OATS,   COST    OF    PRODUCTION,    1896.  57 

account  of  it  had  been  published.  However,  the  tables  show  that  they 
have  been  prepared  with  some  care.  A  careful  discrimination  has 
been  made  between  the  different  elements  which  enter  into  the  expense 
of  production.  This  is  an  important  feature  which  former  investiga- 
tions of  the  Department  have  omitted. 

THE  PRESENT  INQUIRY. 

When  the  initiatory  steps  of  the  present  inquiry  were  taken  nothing 
was  known  of  the  work  already  begun  by  the  Illinois  Department  of 
Agriculture.  In  preparing  the  circulars  to  be  sent  to  the  farmers  of  the 
state,  an  attempt  was  made  to  avoid  the  weaknesses  and  supply  the 
deficiencies  of  the  earlier  efforts  of  this  kind.  It  was  the  aim  to  reach, 
so  far  as  possible,  the  working  farmers  of  the  state  as  a  class.  No  dis- 
crimination was  made  in  favor  of  those  who  are  recognized  as  experts, 
or  profess  some  special  interest  in  these  inquiries.  It  was  deemed  that 
much  more  trustworthy  results  would  be  obtained  by  seeking  informa- 
tion from  the  farmers  in  general,  because  the  average  conditions  in 
practical  farming  are  more  likely  to  be  reached  in  this  way  than  in  any 
other.  In  the  main,  the  questions  were  so  arranged  in  the  circular  as 
to  follow  the  order  of  the  work  in  production.  The  questions  do  not 
call  for  estimates,  but  for  actual  expenditures.  The  questions  were 
made  as  few  as  possible,  and  of  such  a  character  that  they  could  be 
answered  easily.  Wherever  possible,  expenditures  were  asked  for  in 
terms  of  days'  labor.  The  rate  of  wages  per  man,  and  per  man  and 
team,  was  then  asked  for  in  order  to  be  applied  to  the  number  of  days 
spent  in  labor.  The  purpose  of  putting  the  inquiry  into  this  form  was 
to  remove  the  temptation  to  make  estimates, — a  temptation  to  which 
one  yields  more  easily  when  giving  answers  to  such  questions  in  dollars 
and  cents. 

There  is  another  advantage  of  much  importance  secured  by  asking 
for  replies  in  terms  of  days'  of  labor  rather  than  of  dollars.  The  men 
of  the  family  of  the  farmer  doubtless  work  many  days  without  remun- 
eration in  wages  such  as  is  accorded  hired  help.  If  answers  had  been 
requested  in  terms  of  dollars,  some  correspondents  would  doubtless  have 
omitted  the  cost  of  that  family  labor.  As  the  circular  was  worded,  we 
probably  secured  a  pretty  complete  return  of  this  labor.  Some  of  the 
questions  proposed  have  no  direct  bearing  on  the  cost  of  production. 
They  were  inserted  for  other  purposes.  Following  is  a  form  of  the 
circular  sent  out: — 


58  BULLETIN  NO.   50.  [February, 

UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS, 
URBANA  AND  CHAMPAIGN. 

JANUARY  30,  1897. 

The  University  of  Illinois  is  endeavoring  to  secure  accurate  information  concern- 
ing the  cost  to  the  farmer  of  producing  corn  and  oats.  Your  cooperation  is  asked  in 
the  work.  You  will  confer  a  great  favor  by  answering  the  following  questions,  which 
refer  to  the  crop  of  1896,  no  matter  whether  your  conditions  for  that  year  were 
favorable  or  not. 

Information  of  this  kind  will  throw  light  on  our  agricultural  question,  and  none 
can  give  it  better  than  the  farmers  themselves.  Of  course  all  answers  will  be  treated 
as  confidential. 

Name  of  Township 

(A)  CORN. 

How  many  acres  jrrown? 

How  many  days  labor  actually  used  in: — (a)  Breaking  stalks?  (b)  Plowing?  (c) 
Disking?  (d)  Harrowing?  (e)  Rolling?  (/)  Planting?  (^)  Cultivating?  (h)  Cutting? 
(?')  Husking?  (j)  Hauling  to  market? 

What  was  the  cost  (in  dollars)  of  shelling? 

Was  it  grown  on  sod  or  other  land? 

Was  it  planted  by  hand  or  check-rower? 

Was  it  cut  or  husked  from  the  hill? 

How  many  times  was  it  cultivated? 

What  was  the  total  yield  in  bushels? 

If  husked  by  machine: — (a)  What  was  the  cost  (in  dollars)  per  acre?  (b)  Did 
the  fodder  keep?  (c)  How  did  it  compare  with  timothy  hay  for  feed?  (d)  How  much 
was  baled  for  market?  (e)  What  was  the  price  per  ton? 

(B)  OATS. 

How  many  acres  grown? 

Was  it  grown  on  corn  or  other  land? 

How  many  days  labor  actually  used  in: — (a)  Breaking  stalks?  (b)  Plowing?  (c) 
Disking?  (d)  Harrowing?  (e)  Rolling?  (/)  Sowing?  (g)  Cutting  and  shocking? 
(h)  Hauling  and  threshing?  (z")  Hauling  to  market? 

What  was  the  cost  (in  dollars)  of  twine  used? 

What  was  the  total  yield  in  bushels? 

(C)  What  was  the  rate  of  wages  per  man? 

What  was  the  rate  of  wages  per  man  and  team? 
What  was  the  rent  of  land  per  acre? 
What  is  the  distance  to  market? 


Name. 


Eight  hundred  of  the  above  forms  were  sent  out  in  February,  and 
about  one  hundred  more  at  later  times  to  some  of  the  counties  which 
previously  made  no  replies.  When  the  returns  began  to  come  in,  they 
showed  at  once  that  some  important  points  had  been  overlooked  in  pre- 
paring' the  questions,  while  some  of  the  questions  prepared  were  so 
worded  as  in  some  cases  to  give  rise  to  vague  answers.  In  order  to  secure 
some  additional  information  and  remedy  the  difficulties  that  developed, 
the  following  form  was  sent  to  100  of  those  who  had  made  replies: — 


1898.]  CORN    AND    OATS,   COST    OF    PRODUCTION,    1896.  59 

1.  Number  of  horses  used  in: — (a)  Plowing?     (b)  Disking?     (c)  Harrowing? 

2.  Cutting  and  shocking  oats: — (a)  Number  of  days?     (b)  Number  of  men?     (c) 
Number  of  horses? 

3.  Hauling  and  threshing  oats: — (a)  Number  of  days?     (b)  Number  of  men?     (c) 
Number  of  horses? 

4.  Cost  of  seed:— (a)  Corn?     (b)  Oats? 


Name 

Township. . . 
County. 


Of  the  900  of  the  original  circulars  distributed,  316  were  returned 
with  answers,  and  of  the  second  form  nearly  all.  Considering  the 
nature  of  the  inquiry  and  the  fact  that  the  circulars  were  sent  to  all 
classes  of  producers  in  every  part  of  the  state,  this  is  held  to  be  a  very 
excellent  showing.  About  15  per  cent,  of  the  replies  were  accompanied 
by  letters  in  explanation  of  some  parts.  Many  useful  suggestions  were 
contained  in  these,  and  some  information  was  gained  that  could  not 
well  have  been  obtained  in  answers  to  questions. 

When  the  replies  were  examined  some  counties  were  proved  to  be 
largely  represented,  while  others  were  not  represented  at  all.  In  send- 
ing out  the  circulars,  an  effort  was  made,  as  has  been  said,  to  distribute 
them  as  equally  as  possible  over  the  territory  of  the  state.  The  fact, 
then,  that  some  counties  show  no  returns  is  to  be  attributed  largely  to  the 
agricultural  conditions  which  prevail.  As  inspection  of  the  tables  will 
show  that  these  counties  are  mainly  in  the  southern  group,  where,  gen- 
erally speaking,  corn  and  oats  are  not  the  staple  products.  Further- 
more, a  study  of  the  Crop  Reports  of  Illinois  in  recent  years,  and  of  the 
United  States  census  reports  for  1890,  with  respect  to  the  acreage  and 
production  of  corn  and  oats  in  the  counties  of  Illinois,  shows  that  those 
counties  from  which  the  largest  number  of  replies  came  to  our  inquiry, 
are  the  ones  in  which  these  grains  are  most  largely  grown. 

An  analysis  of  the  returns  reveals  the  fact  that  while  there  is  great 
uniformity  in  the  answers  to  some  of  the  questions  asked,  in  the  answers 
to  others  there  is  considerable  variation.  This  was  to  be  expected, 
since  in  different  localities  the  elements  which  enter  into  cost  of  pro- 
duction are  necessarily  different.  This  fact  indicated  the  method  for 
compiling  the  data.  It  was  determined  to  take  account  of  the  constant 
elements  first,  to  compute  the  expense  of  production  up  to  the  point 
where  differences  appeared  in  the  character  of  the  constituent  elements 
of  expenses  of  production,  and  then  to  make  whatever  additions  were 
necessary  to  include  the  variable  factors.  An  examination  of  the 
replies  showed  that,  with  the  exception  of  cutting,  shelling,  and  hauling 
to  market  the  elements  comprising  the  expenses  of  production  were 
very  uniform  in  character.  It  was  decided,  therefore,  to  find  the 


€o  BULLETIN  NO.    50.  ,    [February, 

expense  of  production  first  excluding  these  three  elements,  and  then 
to  add  the  necessary  amounts  for  these  items  separately. 

Of  the  316  replies,  274  were  used  in  constructing  the  tables  on  corn. 
The  others  either  failed  to  give  reports  on  corn,  were  incomplete,  or 
for  some  reason  were  deemed  unreliable.  It  was  not  thought  necessary 
to  insert  the  individual  replies.  Accordingly  table  i  shows  the  returns  by 
•counties.  .  The  elements  of  expense  of  production  as  far  as,  and  includ- 
ing, husking,  are  labor,  rent  of  land,  and  seed.  The  sum  of  these 
three  was  found  for  each  individual  reply,  and  the  sum  of  these  sums 
gave  the  total  of  the  county.  This  divided  by  the  total  number  of  acres 
or  bushels  represented  in  the  replies  gave  the  expense  per  acre  and  per 
bushel,  respectively.  The  average  additional  expense  per  acre  and  per 
bushel  due  to  the  three  variable  elements  was  then  determined  separately 
for  each  county  and  added  to  the  average  previously  found.  The  result 
was  the  total  cost  per  acre  and  per  bushel  for  the  county,  so  far  as 
•determined  by  the  elements  taken  into  account. 

The  number  of  replies  which  gave  expense  for  seed  was  59.  These 
were  used  to  obtain  the  average  for  the  state.  As  calculated  from  table 
•6  it  is  .065  per  acre,  or  .455  per  bushel  planted.  The  average  amount 
of  seed  to  the  acre  was  estimated  at  one-seventh  of  a  bushel. 

Frequently  some  of  the  items,  as  the  rate  of  wages,  or  the  rent  of 
land  were  omitted  in  the  replies.  Their  places  were  filled  by  taking  an 
.average  of  the  returns  obtained  from  the  same  county.  Throughout 
the  investigation  the  rate  of  wages  per  man  and  team,  when  it  was  not 
given,  is  estimated  at  double  the  rate  of  wages  per  man.  The  rent  of 
land  was  not  always  given  in  dollars,  but  occasionally  as  some  fractional 
part  of  the  crop.  A  proportionate  amount  was  then  subtracted  from 
the  number  of  acres  and  bushels  returned,  and  the  total  expense,  ex- 
cluding rent,  divided  by  the  remainder,  giving  the  expense  per  acre 
and  per  bushel.  For  instance,  in  one  reply  the  rent  of  land  is  given  as 
•one-half  of  the  crop,  the  number  of  acres  60,  the  number  of  bushels 
3,000,  and  the  cost,  exclusive  of  rent,  $259.90.  Dividing  this  cost  by 
one-half  the  number  of  acres  and  bushels  we  have  $8.66  and  $.173  for 
the  cost  per  acre  and  per  bushel  respectively.  On  account  of  this 
irregularity,  the  average  rent  per  acre  for  the  counties  multiplied  by  the 
number  of  acres'  reported  will  not  always  give  the  total  rent  for  the 
counties.  The  average  rent  per  acre  for  the  counties  is  the  average  of 
the  returns  which  were  given  in  money. 

Of  the  316  replies  received  to  the  questions  only  170  were  available 
in  compiling  the  tables  concerning  oats.  A  larger  number  failed  to 
report  on  oats  than  on  corn,  and  a  great  many  were  so  confused  on 
some  points  that  their  answers  were  evidently  unreliable.  In  computing 
the  average  cost  here,  the  same  method  was  pursued  as  before.  The 


1898.]  CORN    AND    OATS,   COST    OF    PRODUCTION,    1896.  6l 

expense  of  production  was  first  found  so  far  as  the  uniform  elements  were 
concerned,  and  additions  made  to  the  county  averages  for  the  variable 
factors.  Only  one  variable  element,  however,  appears  in  the  case  of 
oats,  that  of  hauling  to  market.  With  one  exception  the  same  irregu- 
larities occur  in  the  individual  returns  as  in  those  on  corn,  and  the  same 
points  are  to  be  noted  regarding  them.  The  exception  consists  in  an 
estimate  made  in  some  of  the  returns  with  respect  to  the  days  of  labor 
spent  in  cutting  and  shocking,  and  hauling  and  threshing.  There  were 
many  replies  in  which  the  number  of  men  and  teams  used  in  cutting, 
shocking,  hauling,  and  threshing,  was  not  given,  although  the  time  taken 
to  perform  these  operations  was  given.  In  order  to  supply  this  omission 
and  render  usable  many  replies  which  were  otherwise  excellent,  the  aver- 
age number  of  men  and  of  men  and  teams  used  in  these  two  kinds  of 
labor  was  determined  from  those  replies  in  which  definite  answers  were 
given.  These  averages  were  then  applied  in  all  those  cases  where  some 
definite  time  was  given  for  performing  the  work.  The  cost  of  seed  was 
computed  in  the  same  manner  as  in  the  case  of  corn,  and  is  50  cents 
per  acre,  or  20  cents  per  bushel.*  The  average  amount  of  seed  to  the 
acre  was  estimated  at  two  and  one-half  bushels. 

GENERAL  CONSIDERATIONS  AFFECTING  THE  STATISTICS. 

Before  analysing  our  results  and  comparing  them  with  those  of 
former  investigations,  it  will  be  necessary  to  take  notice  of  some  factors 
in  cost  of  production  that  do  not  appear  in  the  circular,  as  well  as  of 
some  things  produced  which  are  not  accounted  for  in  the  number  of 
bushels  of  grain  reported. 

First,  there  is  the  annual  interest  on  the  capital  invested  in 
machinery,  horses,  etc.,  together  with  the  depreciation  of  the  same, 
which  are  necessarily  parts  of  cost.  This  interest  is  not  to  be  added  to 
the  cost  of  each  crop,  but  is  to  be  distributed  among  all  the  crops  of 
the  farm  in  proportion  to  the  amounts  of  time  during  which  the  fixed 
capital  was  used  in  the  production  of  the  respective  crops.  It  is  diffi- 
cult to  determine  the  amount  to  be  placed  to  the  account  of  each. 

In  the  second  place,  there  is  sometimes  considerable  capital  in- 
vested in  fertilizers.  This  is  not  all  to  be  added  to  the  cost  of  the  first 
crop  which  is  grown  after  the  treatment  of  the  soil,  as  is  commonly 
done;  but,  rather  it  should  be  distributed  over  successive  crops  as  long 
as  its  beneficial  effects  endure.  How  this  apportionment  should  be 
made  is  also  difficult  to  determine. 

Further,  it  is  not  contended  that  the  labor  processes  taken  account 
of  in  the  circular,  constitute  all  the  labor  that  enters  into  production. 

*  See  table  4. 


62  BULLETIN  NO.   50.  \February, 

There  are  many  days'  work  done  about  a  farm,  as  in  the  destruction  of 
noxious  weeds,  the  repairing  of  fences,  etc.,  in  order  to  keep  it  in  the 
best  conditions  for  production,  which  must  be  made  a  part  of  the  cost 
of  all  crops  affected  thereby. 

Finally  in  the  case  of  oats  the  cost  of  the  use  of  the  threshing 
machine  and  that  of  coal  are  to  be  added  to  the  average  expense  as 
determined  in  the  tables. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  fact  must  be  kept  constantly  in  view  that 
the  labor  and  capital  invested  have  produced  some  values  in  addition 
to  the  number  of  bushels  of  grain.  In  the  case  of  corn  there  are  the 
stalks,  or  fodder,  usually  worth  something,  and  frequently  considerable. 
In  the  case  of  oats  there  is  the  straw,  which  always  has  a  value.  Fre- 
quently other  things  are  grown  with  both  corn  and  oats  with  little  or  no 
additional  labor.  For  instance,  clover  is  commonly  sown  with  oats, 
and  used  for  pasturage  after  the  oats  are  harvested,  or  plowed  under  for 
a  fertilizer.  It  is  particularly  to  be  emphasised,  that,  when  any  attempt 
is  made  to  determine  the  profits  arising  from  the  production  of  a  crop, 
the  value  of  these  complementary  products  must  be  taken  into  consid- 
eration. 

ANALYSIS  OF  THE  TABLES — CORN. 

Table  i  presents  the  returns  for  corn  by  counties.  It  shows  that 
of  a  total  of  102  counties  76  are  represented  in  the  replies.  This  is 
74.5  per  cent.  A  careful  examination  of  the  counties  from  which 
replies  were  most  numerous  shows  that  the  "corn  counties"  are  very 
well  represented.  It  is  probable  therefore,  that  the  averages  need  no 
correction  for  unequal  distribution  of  replies.  The  total  number  of 
acres  represented  by  the  replies  is  16,603.  The  corn  acreage  of  the 
state  in  1896  was  6,881,400.  The  total  number  of  bushels  represented 
is  896,235.  The  total  crop  for  that  year  was  288,616,334.  As  has  been 
said,  the  cost  of  production  as  far  as,  and  including,  husking  was  first 
worked  out,  for  the  reason  that  the  other  items  of  cost  did  not  appear 
in  all  of  the  replies.  Taking  the  figures  as  they  stand,  it  appears  that 
the  lowest  cost  per  bushel  is  in  Edgar  county,  11.3  cents;  the  highest 
in  Edwards  county,  38.8  cents.  The  average  for  the  state  is  $8.72  per 
acre  and  16.1  cents  per  bushel. 

In  addition  to  the  expenses  of  production  thus  far  discussed  there 
are  certain  other  items  which,  as  has  been  said  elsewhere,  should  fairly 
be  included.  Something  needs  to  be  added  for  depreciation  of  equip- 
ment and  for  interest  on  investment  in  equipment;  something  more  for 
the  cost  of  keeping  teams  when  idle  through  the  winter,  and  also 
something  for  wages  of  the  men  when  the  weather  is  so  bad  that  they 
cannot  work.  It  is  difficult  to  estimate  these  items,  but  we  may  perhaps 
get  at  the  matter  in  some  such  way  as  this: 


1898.]  CORN    AND    OATS,   COST    OF    PRODUCTION,    1896.  63 

The  cost  of  equipment  will  perhaps  average  about  $250.00  'for 
every  40  acres.  If  we  allow  10  2per  cent,  for  deterioration  and  6  per 
cent,  interest,  it  will  be  necessary  to  add  about  1.8  of  a  cent  per  bushel 
to  the  cost  of  the  crop  of  the  year  that  we  are  considering.  Per  acre 
the  amount  will  be  $1.00.  If  we  allow  5  per  cent,  of  time  lost  we  must 
add  also  to  get  our  total  cost,  4  mills3  per  bushel,  and  21  cents  per  acre. 
Allow  $15.00  as  the  cost  of  keeping  a  team  5  months  on  the  basis  of 
$1.50  per  month  per  horse  for  pasturage.  One-half  of  this,  $7.50,  may 
be  placed  against  oats  and  corn  when  they  are  the  leading  crops.  If 
we  allow  one  team  for  every  40  acres,  we  must  add  1.7  mills  per  bushel 
and  9  cents  per  acre  for  this  item. 

Finally,  something  should  be  allowed  for  the  cost  of  cribs.  The 
original  cost  of  these  is  about  2  cents  per  bushel  capacity,  and  a  crib 
will  ordinarily  last  about  12  years.  We  must  therefore  add  for  this  item 
about  one-sixth  of  a  cent  per  bushel  to  our  cost.  This  gives  us,  per 
bushel,  18.6  cents,  and,  per  acre,  $10. 10. 

As  against  the  items  of  a  general  character  on  account  of  which  we 
have  added  to  the  cost  as  shown  in  the  table,  there  are  certain  other 
items  that  must  be  regarded  as  lessening  the  cost  obtained.  In  the  first 
place,  during  the  period  of  growth  of  the  crop  both  men  and  teams  are 
likely  to  spend  considerable  time  in  other  work  than  that  involved  in 
the  original  crop.  How  much  should  be  allowed  for  this  it  is  impossi- 
ble to  say.  Perhaps,  however,  it  wpuld  offset  the  amount  added  on 
account  of  idleness  during  bad  weather.  Of  more  importance  than  this 
is  the  value  of  the  by-products.  The  principal  one  is  the  stalks,  which 
often  serve  as  fodder.  The  value  of  this  fodder  must,  of  course,  be 
deducted  from  the  gross  cost  already  figured  out.  We  may  estimate  it 
at  i  cent  per  bushel,*  or  54  per  acre.  Making  these  deductions  we  get 
17.3  cents  per  bushel  and  $9.35  per  acre.  If  the  reports  recently  made 
public  concerning  the  availability  of  the  pith  of  corn-stalks  for  use  as 
cellulose  in  naval  and  other  construction,  are  borne  out,  the  value  of  the 
corn-stalk  as  a  by  product  will  be  greatly  increased. 

How  much,  now,  must  we  allow  for  what  we  have  called  the  non- 
uniform  elements  of  cost  of  production,  namely,  shelling,  hauling  to 
market,  and  cutting? 

It  is  a  question  whether  the  cost  of  any  of  these  operations  should  be 

1.  Team,  wagon  and  harness,  $170.00;    plow,  $12  oo;    harrow,   $11.00;     planter,    $40.00;     cultivator, 
$18.00;  disk,  $28  oo;  roller,  $20.00.    Total,  $299.00.    If  we  assume  that  one  harrow,  planter,  disk,  and  roller 
will  do  for  80  acres,  we  must  deduct  half  the  price  of  each,  leaving  $250.00.     If  stalks  be  cut  by  machine, 
$21.00,  or  half  the  price  of  cutter,  should  be  added  to  make  equipment  complete. 

2.  It  is  not  meant  that  the  equipment  needs  replacing  only  once  in  ten  years,  but  that  so  far  as  de- 
preciation is  caused  by  use  in  corn  raising  ten  per  cent,  per  annum  is  a  fair  allowance. 

3.  Total  days  labor  man  and  team,  through  husking-f- No.  bushels  x. 05  /       37°79 

J  V  = x. 05  x  $2. 13=. 004. 

x  average  wages  of  men  and  team,  -  j      896235 

*The  figure  of  the  Orange  Judd  Farmer. 


64  BULLETIN  NO.   50.  [February, 

included  in  the  expense  of  producing  corn.  They  certainly  are  not  to  be 
included  in  those  cases  where  the  corn  is  fed  in  the  ear  to  hogs  or  stock. 
Cutting,  at  least,  as  has  been  said,  is  not  properly  counted  an  item  of 
cost  at  all,  especially  since,  in  most  cases,  breaking  and  plowing  in  the 
stalks,  have  already  been  allowed  for.  Moreover,  the  cost  of  cutting 
would  doubtless  be  more  than  offset  by  the  value  of  the  stalks  for  fodder. 
Hence  the  cost  of  cutting  need  not  be  included,  although  it  is  of 
interest  to  determine  how  much  it  is.  The  total  number  of  acres  cut 
was  1510,  and  their  yield  was  79,826  bushels.  The  number  of  days* 
labor  required  was  1059.  At  the  average  wages  of  $1.06  per  day,  we 
get  74  cents  per  acre,  and  .014  cent  per  bushel,  as  the  average  cost. 
The  amount  of  stalks  which  supply  on  the  average  one  bushel  of  grain 
took  .013  of  a  day  to  cut. 

Turning,  now,  to  shelling  and  hauling,  a  true,  mathematical,  aver- 
age cost  of  production  for  the  whole  crop  would  perhaps  require  us  to- 
determine  the  average  cost  of  each  of  these  processes  for  the  quantity 
to  which  each  of  them  was  actually  applied,  and  then  to  add  to  the 
average  cost  of  the  whole  crop,  through  husking,  such  proportions  of 
the  cost  obtained  for  shelling  and  hauling  as  the  amounts  shelled  and 
hauled  bear  to  the  whole.  Such  an  average,  however,  would  be  ideal. 
It  would  have  no  actual  cost  to  correspond  to  it,  and  so  would  be  of  no 
interest.  The  practical  question  is:  What  does  it  cost  on  the  average, 
per  bushel  and  per  acre,  to  raise  corn  and  deliver  it  at  the  elevator? 
Accordingly,  we  add  to  the  total  cost  thus  far  obtained  the  average 
cost  of  shelling  and  of  hauling  as  calculated  from  the  figures  obtained 
from  those  who  reported  shelling  and  hauling.  Of  the  whole  amount 
of  corn  reported  312,426  bushels  were  shelled,  from  5,638  acres.  The 
total  cost  of  shelling  was  $2,935.93,  or  9  mills  per  bushel  and  52  cents 
per  acre.  The  range  of  cost  of  shelling,  per  bushel,  was  from  a  quarter 
of  a  cent  to  two  cents.  Each  of  these  prices  applied  to  only  a  single 
report.  The  great  majority  of  replies  were  pretty  close  to  the  average. 

The  number  of  bushels  hauled  to  market,  shelled  and  unshelled, 
was  311,345,  from  5,561  acres,  and  the  hauling  took  1,922  days'  labor 
of  one  man  and  team.  At  $2. 13  per  day,  this  amounted  to  $4,093.86,  or 
.013  cent  per  bushel,  and  73  cents  per  acre.  The  average  distance  was 
3.2  miles,  and  the  average  load  162  bushels.  Hence  the  cost  of  haul- 
ing one  bushel  one  mile  was  4  mills.  Adding  these  items  we  get  a  final 
cost  per  bushel,  of  19.5  cents,  and  per  acre,  of  $10.59. 

Making  all  allowances  it  would  seem  proper  to  accept  these  as- 
fair  figures  for  the  cost  of  production,  per  bushel  and  per  acre,  of  the 
corn  crop  of  Illinois  in  1896.  It  will  be  seen  that  this  result  differs 
materially  from  those  given  in  the  United  States  reports,  and  in  the  Crop 
Reports  of  Illinois.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind,  moreover,  that  this  is 


1898.]  CORN    AND    OATS,   COST    OF    PRODUCTION,    1896.  65 

the  expense  of  production  per  bushel  and  per  acre  for  the  crop  of  a  single 
year.  It  would  be  absurd  to  regard  this  cost  as  correct  for  any  other 
year.  The  figures  could  not  be  quoted,  therefore  for  1897,  and  still 
less  for  a  period  10  years  from  now. 

It  is  important  to  emphasize  exactly  what  this  cost  represents.  It 
is  not  the  cost  of  the  growing,  merely.  As  has  been  indicated,  it  is  the 
average  sum  of  the  expenditures  on  all  the  processes  involved  in  pro- 
duction, from  the  preparation  of  the  soil  to  the  delivery  at  the  elevator, 
including  the  wages  of  the  farmer  himself,  whether  owner  or  renter;  a 
proper  allowance  for  time  lost,  and  for  maintenance  of  team  during 
idleness;  interest  on  investment,  including  rent,  and  allowance  for 
depreciation  of  tools  and  machinery.  Anything  received  for  corn, 
above  this  cost,  represents  pure  profit  in  the  economic  sense. 

Certain  other  items  of  interest  may  be  gleaned  from  the  tables. 
The  average  number  of  acres  devoted  to  corn  on  the  farms  reported 
was  60.6. 

The  total  amount  paid  out  in  rent  was  $64,333.26.* 

OATS. 

After  what  has  been  said  about  the  tables  on  corn,  little  need  be 
said  about  those  on  oats.  On  the  face  of  the  returns  the  cost  of  pro- 
duction for  the  year  in  question  was,  up  .to  the  stage  of  hauling  to 
market,  17.8  cents  per  bushel,  and  $6.59  per  acre.  Of  these  amounts 
5^  cents  and  $2.07  went  for  labor,  per  bushel  and  per  acre,  respec- 
tively; 10  cents  and  $3.80  for  rent;  1.4  cents  and  53  cents  for  seed; 
and  half  a  cent  and  19.6  cents  for  twine. 

The  amount  of  oats  hauled  was  153,356  bushels,  from  4031  acres, 
for  an  average  distance  of  3.2  miles.  The  work  took  684  days  and  cost 
$1491.12.  This  makes  37  cents  per  acre,  and  9  mills  per  bushel. 

The  amount  to  be  included  for  depreciation  and  interest  in  the  case 
of  oats,  may  be  estimated  at  about  2.2  cents  a  bushel  and  80  cents  per 
acre.  This  gives  us  a  final  average  of  21  cents  per  bushel  and  $7.76 
per  acre,  for  the  cost  of  oats  delivered  on  the  market,  in  the  season  of 
1896.  This  is  a  larger  per  bushel  cost  than  is  shown  for  corn  and  will 
strike  the  reader  as  strange;  but  it  is  accounted  for  by  the  low  average 
yield.  According  to  the  tables  the  yield  of  oats  was  34  bushels  to  the 
acre,  which  is  considerably  below  the  average;  while  that  of  corn  was 
54  bushels,  or  somewhat  above  the  average.  If  the  oats  had  shown  as 
high  a  yield  per  acre  as  did  the  corn,  their  cost  per  bushel  would  have 
been  only  14.4  cents. 

The  lowest   cost   per  bushel  was  in   Cass  county,   11.9  cents;  the 

*This  includes  the  estimated  amounts  of  rents  paid  in  produce,  on  the  basis  of  the  cost  of  the  pro- 
duce, and  makes  an  average  of  about  $4.00  an  acre. 


66  BULLETIN    NO.     50. 

highest  in  Moultrie  county,  58.2  cents.      The  lowest  per  acre  cost  was 
$4.61,  in  Bond  county;  the  highest  $10.47,  in  Boone  county. 

In  table  3  the  counties  are  grouped  as  northern,  central,  and 
southern.  The  grouping  is  the  same  as  that  made  for  the  purpose  of 
holding  terms  of  the  supreme  court.  The  table  shows  in  small  compass 
the  relative  costs  of  production  in  the  divisions  of  the  state  and  enables 
comparison  of  results  to  be  made  with  those  of  the  State  Department 
of  Agriculture  for  the  same  groups. 

CONCLUSIONS. 

A  comparison  of  the  results  of  the  present  inquiry  with  those  of 
previous  ones  shows  that  the  averages  in  the  present  inquiry  are  consid- 
erably lower.  This  is  true  particularly  of  the  average  cost  per  bushel. 
In  the  case  of  corn  the  cost  per  bushel  as  determined  by  the  Illinois 
Department  of  Agriculture,  in  1886,  was  42  cents,  and  by  the  United 
States  Department  of  Agriculture  in  1893,  38  cents;  while  in  the  present 
investigation  it  is  only  19  cents.  The  differences  in  the  cost  per  acre, 
although  considerable,  are  not  so  striking.  It  is  of  course  to  be  expected 
that  the  cost  per  bushel  will  vary  considerably  from  year  to  year,  the 
yield  depending  very  much  on  the  seasonal  conditions.  However,  an 
examination  of  the  tables  put  forth  by  the  Illinois  Department  of  Agri- 
culture in  1886  and  1887,  leads  to 'the  conclusion  that  the  Department's 
estimates  of  the,  yield  per  acre  are  too  low.  As  said  before,  the  main 
object  of  these  tables  seems  to  have  been  to  show  the  relation  between 
the  value  of  the  crop  and  the  expense  of  production.  According  to  the 
tables  there  was  a  loss  of  about  $20,000,000  on  the  corn  crop  of  1886, 
and  about  $17,500,000  on  the  crop  of  1887,  there  being  a  total  yield  of 
182,500,000  bushels  in  the  former  year  and  129,500,000  in  the  latter. 
This  would  be  a  loss  of  10  cents  per  bushel  in  1886  and  13  cents  in  1887. 
It  is  hard  to  believe  that  the  farmers  in  Illinois  were  losers  to  such  an 
amount  in  those  years,  or  that  the  price  of  grain  fell  so  far  below  the 
cost  of  production.  Of  course  no  one  can  deny  that  the  price  of 
grain  may  fall  below  the  cost  of  production,  but  it  is  not  likely  to 
fall  very  much  below,  and  we  cannot  suppose  that  it  will  do  so 
for  many  successive  years.  The  same  criticism  must  be  passed  upon 
the  report  of  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture.  The  average 
yield  per  acre  is  probably  much  greater  and  the  cost  of  production  per 
bushel  much  lower  than  the  estimates  in  these  reports. 

In  the  case  of  oats  the  table  given  out  by  the  Illinois  Department 
of  Agriculture  in  1886  places  the  cost  per  bushel  at  $.288,  while  the 
present  investigation  shows  it  to  be  $.184;  but  there  is  also  an  equal 
discrepancy  in  the  cost  per  acre,  which  is  $9.80  in  the  one  case  and 


1898.]  CORN    AND    OATS,   COST    OF    PRODUCTION,    1896.  67 

$6.83  in  the  other.  As  to  the  estimate  of  the  yield  per  acre  and  its  effect 
upon  the  average  cost  per  bushel,  precisely  the  same  things  are  to  be 
noted  as  were  noted  concerning  corn.  Further,  it  must  be  concluded 
that  the  average  cost  per  acre  as  determined  by  the  Illinois  Department 
of  Agriculture  in  1886  was  too  high.  The  county  averages  in  the  present 
inquiry  are  almost  uniformly  lower  than  those  of  the  Department.  This, 
of  course,  would  very  materially  reduce  the  average  cost  per  bushel. 

A  comparison  of  the  results  of  this  inquiry  with  those  of  the  State 
Department  of  Agriculture  in  1897  shows  that  the  averages  for  the  state 
are  nearly  alike,  with  respect  to  corn. 

The  average  for  oats  as  determined  in  the  present  inquiry,  is  about 
$2.00  less  than  that  of  the  Department.  It  should  be  noticed  also  that 
county  averages  are  almost  uniformly  less.  After  allowances  are  made 
for  any  elements  of  cost  that  do  not  appear  in  this  investigation,  it  must 
still  be  concluded  that  the  averages  published  in  the  recent  report  of  the 
Illinois  Department  are  too  high. 

Generally  speaking,  the  results  of  the  inquiry  tend  to  prove  that  the 
average  cost  of  production,  and  particularly  the  average  cost  per  bushel, 
is  much  less  than  commonly  thought.  It  has  always  been  a  puzzle  for 
people  to  make  the  customary  market  prices  of  grain  agree  with  what 
was  the  supposed  cost  of  production.  It  may  be  unhesitatingly  asserted 
that  when  all  complementary  products  are  accounted  for,  the  average 
market  price  of  grain  will  rarely  fall  below  the  cost  of  production  and 
then  only  for  brief  intervals. 

It  would  be  interesting,  if  possible,  in  the  comparison  of  different 
inquiries  of  this  kind,  to  note  whether  there  has  been  a  gradual  decrease 
in  the  cost  of  production  due  to  improvements  in  machinery  and  methods. 
But  the  data  upon  which  such  a  conclusion  would  have  to  be  based  are 
too  meagre  and  untrustworthy.  Satisfactory  conclusions  in  this  direc- 
tion could  only  be  reached  by  a  series  of  careful  investigations  extending 
through  a  number  of  years. 

COST  OF  SEED. 

Table  4  shows  the  data  from  which  the  average  cost  of  seed  was 
computed. 


INDIVIDUAL  REPORTS. 

As  a  matter  of  interest,  and  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  com- 
parisons to  be  made,  we  give  below  a  few  individual  cases. 

No.  i.  Mr.  E.  S.  Fursman,  of  El  Paso,  Woodford  Co.,  submits 
the  following  : 


68  BULLETIN  NO.    50.  [February, 

A  field  of  30  acres  of  clover  sod  one  year  old,  plowed  in  October,  after  cutting  a 
crop  of  clover  in  July  and  pasturing  till  October. 

Plowing,  3-horse  sulky  plow,  10  days  at  $3.00  per  day. . .    $  30.00 

Disking  i  man,  4  horses,  2^  days  7-87 

Harrowing,  before  planting,  man  and  4  horses,  i^  days  at  $3. 50,  6.11 

Seed  at  75  cents 2 . 70 

Planting,  man  and  two  horses,  2^  days  at  $2.50 5.62 

Harrowing,  after  planting,  man  and  4  horses,  i  day 3-5° 

Plowing,  3  times,  man  and  team,  13  days 32.50 

Husking,  2  ^  cents  per  bushel 48 .  oo 

Shelling,  5  men  and  machine 25.50 

Hauling,  on  basis  of  distance  of  3*4  miles 26.62 

Rent,  at  $80  per  acre,  6  per  cent 144 .  oo 

Total  cost i $332.42 

Cost  per  acre 1 1 . 08 

Yield,  71  bushels  per  acre.     Cost,  15.6  cents  per  bushel. 

No.  2.  Washington  Township,  Carroll  Co.  Cost  of  production 
of  one  acre  of  corn. 

Cutting  stalks $0.19 

Plowing 90 

Harrowing  (smoothing) .17 

Planting,  checkrower 28 

Harrowing,  twice   26 

Cultivating,  3  times 1.13 

Rent 3-25 

Interest  on  equipment 22 

Wear  and  tear 42 

Seed 12 

Harvesting i .  80 

Total , $8.74 

Yield,  46  bushels.     Cost,  19  cents  per  bushel. 

No.  3.  Champaign  Co.  No.  acres  85,  total  yield  5,525  bushels, 
or  65  per  acre. 

Breaking  stalks,  days'  labor,  man  and  team 4 

Plowing 38 

Disking 7 

Harrowing   7 

Planting    7 

Cultivating 36 

Husking 85 

Total 184 

Rate  of  wages,  $2.00,  making  a  total  of $368.00 

Rent,  at  $4 . 42  per  acre 287 . 30 

Seed 5-52 

Total $660.82 

Per  acre,  $7.77;  per  bushel,  11.9  cents,  through  husking.  This  record  gives 
no  costs  of  hauling  and  shelling.  If  we  add  the  state  averages  for  these  items  we  get 
a  final  cost  of  $9.20  per  acre  and  14.1  cents  per  bushel. 


1898.]  CORN    AND    OATS,   COST    OF    PRODUCTION,    1896.  69 

No.  4.      De  Kalb  Co.     Field  of  150  acres.     Yield,   6,500  bushels, 
or  43  per  acre. 

Breaking  stalks,  days'  labor 8 

Plowing 30 

Disking 15 

Harrowing 10 

Planting 12 

Cultivating 75 

Husking    120 


Total 270 

Rate  of  wages,  $3.00,  making  a  total  of $  810.00 

Rent,  at  $3.50  per  acre 525.00 

Seed 9-75 

Total $1,344.75 

This  gives  $8.96  per  acre,  and  20.8  cents  per  bushel.     Adding  the  figures  for 
shelling  and  hauling  we  get  $9.91  and  23  cents,  respectively. 

No.  5.     Madison  Co.      25  acres  and  1,100  bushels,  or  44  per  acre. 

Plowing,  days'  labor 20 

Harrowing ; 3 

Planting 5 

Cultivating 18 

Husking 25 

Total 71 

Wages,  $2.25.     Total  cost  of  labor,  through  husking $159-75 

Rent 100 . oo 

Seed i .  62 

Total $261.37 

This  gives,  per  acre,  $10.45;  per  bushel,  23.8  cents. 

Allowing  for  hauling  and  shelling,  we  get  $11 .42  and  26  cents,  respectively. 

No.  6.    Wabash  Co.    24  acres  and  1,100  bushels,  or  46  to  the  acre. 

Plowing,  days'  labor 18 

Harrowing 3.5 

Planting 1.5 

Cultivating 13 

Husking 24 

Total 60 

Rate  of  wages,  $2.00.     Total  cost  of  labor,  through  husking. . .  .$120.00 
Cost  of  seed   i .  56 


Total $121.56 

This  gives  $5.06  per  acre,  and  n  cents  per  bushel.     Adding  the  costs  of   haul- 
ing and  shelling,  we  get  $6.07  per  acre  and  13.2  cents  per  bushel. 

This  does  not  include  rent.     If  we  assume  the  state  average  of  $4.00  for  this 
item,  our  figures  become  $10.07  and  21.9  cents 

The    average  bushel   cost   in  each  of  34  counties  was   below  the 
state  average.  NATHAN  A.   WESTON,   B.S. 


BULLETIN    NO.     50. 


\February, 


Cost  per  bu. 
through 
husking. 


ON  w    W    **-O    m 
" 


w  O   rn  rn  *tf-  O  O   O    ON  rn  rn  •*•  moo  oo   t^O    W   m  ON  t-^  W  O    m  W  O    ON  c«   m  m  W  O 
^  t^  M    O    t**  **   rn  -^-O    m  rn  m  M  OO  O    ON  moo    t-s  **-O    fO  •*    t-*  f-  t-*O  CO  OO    1-*  l*»  •*• 


Cost  per  acre 
through 
husking. 


t--o  ON  VH  MO  wo   M  t>»oo  ONO  co  K.w  mw   r-»  r>.  C-N.  o   M  i>»  m  0  t1*.  M  mm  t>.oo  c* 

O'    f*.  M  CO  00    (-^00    t^OO    t^O    ON  M    ON  t^CO    f-CO    r>-O    t-«  m  ONO    ONOO  00    O-OO  COOOOOO    ONC^-ONONOCO 


Number  of 
bushels. 


OOOOOQOQ   rnoo    0   m  m 


ONOO    f^OQOQOQO'^nOmOOOOO 


Cost  of  crop 
through 
husking. 


•o  oo  co  co  o  m  w 
m  m  rf  *H  M  mo* 


Cost  of  seed. 


Number  of 
acres. 


moo  «  r*»  ^t-oo  w  ON 


^-oo  •^•ooom1-'  o  O^ooo  ONO  N 

w  w  t-k«oo  -  ONONWVOOOVO  -t-oo  \ 

m      »-.mro«w-a--<r      CN 


Rent, 
per  acre. 


oooo      voMt-*.i 


Total  cost 
of  labor, 
through 
husking. 


M-mmiomQuiuiO   O   O   Q   O   O   OmO   O    OOOO   OO   O    O   O    O   *^-mO   **-NO   0   O   QO   mo 
t*-r*-N  w  t-^0  ^•t'N.romo  o  mo  COM   o   0  mo  o  ooo  o  o^nm^'W   oommo   0   om  t*-oo 


Rate  of  wages, 
man  and 
team,  dolls. 


in  i>.  w  M   0  w   o  Ooo 


o  0  O  ONO  -^-NOO  woo  o  o  ONOO  O 
- 


Rate  of  wages, 
man,  dolls. 


Total  days' 
labor, 
including 
husking. 


M-OHI  o-dooo  ONW  ^-w  w  M  t-xw  M  wo  m-^-o  ^  f-oo  -^-M  -^j-Tf-Minw  M  M  poco  ON  mo 
m       MMmm-oomw        mi-M  TJ-OO  O  ON  w  ^-  O        m  rnoo-o  w  t-^  O   M  m  M  w  ^-o        •^~ 


Husking. 


o  N  -^  M  o  O  ^w  m 
^f  moo  wwMwoot^ 
•-I  M  N  «  -^-co  « 


i-  mo  oo  m  Tt-oo  «  r^.oo  MM 


O  ON  0*00  -^-omm 
- 


-<f«otTfm«m* 


Cultivat- 
ing. 


oo  w  'i-^-mmwoco  w  -^-t 


**•  moo   M  m  ts.  moo  O  oo  m  o  O  ONOO  mw 
- 


O  oo  m  o  O  ONOO  mw 
M        MIO-H   o   M  m  m 


MO  ^Ooooo 
- 


Planting. 


w  m  ON  o.  ONO  H  w  «  t%o  ooooooo  mo  mo  t^w  mONW  t^o  ON  moo  ON  t-x  M  ONOO  O  moo  moo 
M  MMMCOW  M  i-t^^fm«-<M  m       i-towo       mmwM       MH«       H 


Rolling. 


O  r-*o    •    •  oo    •  ONO  ^-10**    •  M 


Harrowing. 


Disking. 


-  M  m  M  oo   o-o  ^*-    •     •     •rn'mrnwr-.r-xO 
MM        wcSw*'-          •  t*.«WM 


Plowing. 


M  m  •*•  ON  ONOO  '*t>*m'-'O  mmoNm  t^-oo  -^-OMMW       o>>-'ONNm'^-omoNmwt^HMO 


Breaking 
Stalks. 


Number  of 
replies. 


.  0 

::::::.»«  .....  -0^3  ..•..„:...  :J4  g  •  •  •  •  g  •  •  5  • 

^  :  •=-  :1«  :  :=  :  :  o  ££  tf  «  a  "S  s  '•£  -'  «^g  S  ^i  /  '•>  §  :ri  : 

hi!liHffrb«{i3ltf&l£JlJ!lHmmm« 

•u      os«t=c2=  ^^^  =-~So£,t?±      £  %  Z  o-c 


1898.]  CORN    AND    OATS,   COST    OF    PRODUCTION,    1896. 


VOVO    ••*•  m  m  O    w    CM    O    -"J-00    m  *• 


300ocMCMvomH«MvDr*.  invo  CM  oo  o>  mvo  vo  CM  ^-oo  TJ-  r^  ^-      vo 


•         •• 


N  M  o~\  o  o>  t-*  m  r--oo  oo  ^oo  ^  co 


oo  CM  M-  m  M  vo  o  mvo  o  m  ro  o 
CM       cMvomcMMmmn  M 


^^u^^^O   0   ^O    0   t^O    t^ 
N^O    w    O    -"J-^O    W    t--  ON  O    N    W 


NO'-<roOO'OQOOQ 
MOOvr^O»-(\ooiooO 


10  COOO    0    O1Ou^roO1OOO    ^O    O    fO  M    Q    O    QOO    O    t^\O    OOOOOOOroONQ 


o  ro  O  Tt-  w   t^  h-oo  iNOOO'O'HHOON  -rfoo  oo   o^  t>.  o  ro>o  m  O'O  r-  Tt-  •*•  O 
mmt^.ioNooi-'NM        NOOMCHN^-       u^MMOtM^-^-M        01        M 


oo          OOOO'^OOOOOi-'MQ   O>00 
-  "• 


««°-O    C    U 

+,  u  a  t* 

c-o  e  a 


c  a  o  n 

O    £    U    C 
r-  "    2 


U    "    U  — 

°«t£ 


OS  o."o  S'5 


R-o««. 


'"  ex2~.2 
§•£"*.*• 
2  ^  e  o-- 


O     |  t^ 


N  in  o\  (M  *o  rooo  M 


roNi-ivDoo 


voro«*-O^J-<^  t^.oo  in  •*  m  M  o\  H  t^  moo 


MWI-.  en  -NN  >MC4  *00 


iS  °—  2"e 

*S  *  _  t  &  e 


^  fi   C   3   ft 

o.«  g|  & 

g  «">  S    C  J3 


.  Rent 

in  four 
ii.  T 
o  be  ad 
nnot  be 


of  cr 
to  th 
alon 
rent 


72 


BULLETIN    NO.    50. 


\_February, 


TABLE  2.     COST  OF  PRODUCTION 


County. 

Number  of  replies. 

Days'  labor  of  man  and  team  spent  in 

Total 
through 
hauling  and 
threshing. 

Rate  of 
wages, 
dols. 

Breaking 
stalks. 

Plowing. 

o 

£". 

" 

Harrowing. 

Rolling. 

Cfl 

0 

5' 
w 

Cutting  and 
shocking. 

Hauling  and 
threshing. 

Man. 

Man 
and 
team. 

Man.' 

Man 
and 
team. 

Man. 

Man 
and 
team. 

s» 
o 
a 

Man  and 
team. 

Adams  
Bond  

3 

i 

2-75 

8 
18 

16 

"s" 

24.5 

7 
4-5 
8 
23.5 

4-5 
•5 
•  5B 
5 
9 

.2 

21.5 

3'51 

11 

3 

12 

i.S13 
9 

22 
"•5 

8 

2 
1-25 

I 

n-5 

2 

4-3 
i-5 
10 

5-5 

2 

4 
14-5 
4 
4-3 
6-5 
i-5 
5-5 
10.5 

3-5 
4.314 
17 
9-5 
ii 

2.5 
4 
5 
4-5 

3-5 

i 

2.5 
3-5 

2 

4 

i 

5-5 
4-5 
4 
3-5 
3 
i 

2 

5-5 

i-5 

.5 

6.2 

4 

7 

I? 
!7 

i-3 
84-3 
15.1 

2 

i-4 

4.9 

12 
2.1 
7.6 

8 
62 
26.8 
16.6 
7 

2.8 

40.  i 

2.8 

I5-5 

2.1 
22 

'S-i 
3 
17-5 
35-i 
6.1 
4-5 
M-5 

2.1 

14-7 
3i-3 
10.5 

20 
29.2 
28.8 
36.5 

7-i 
17 
10 
17-5 
8 
i-5 
15 
16.2 

7-i 

2 

6.5 
"•3 
13-5 
.8 
60.5 
9.6 

1-5 

1.4 

4.8 
5-8 

2.1 

7-6 
6 
34 

22.6 
.%{ 

2.8 

28.4 

2.8 
IO 
2.1 
12 

9.i 
4.5 
9.8 
27 
4.i 
3.8 
7-5 

2.1 

9.5 
18.7 

5.5 
i3.9 
23.1 
'7-3 
25 
5.6 
8-5 
5 
10.4 

8'5 

10.  1 
6 

"•3 

26 
15 
40.7 

2 
II9.1 
38.8 

"•3 
7-6 
ii 

12 
II-3 

9 
J33-3 
46.9 
30.1 
14.6 
10.5 
7.6 
47-1 
7-6 
35 

2 

26 

44-2 
8 

22 
49.2 

7-9 
8.5 
13.2 
7-6 

27  8 
47.8 

18 
27-3 
52-3 
33-8 
52.0 

».« 

23 
8 
43-8 
14 

3-5 
3 

21.6 

12.6 

7 

IO 
12 

S6.? 

i-5 
135-6 

2O.  2 
•5 
12.6 

8.4 

12-5 

6 

12.6 

&5 

51 
35-9 
16.4 

ii.  5 
8.4 

52.9 
8.4 
26 

2-5 

30 
33-3 
8 
32 
74-3 

IO 

9 
14.7 
8-4 
32 
49-9 
13 
27.6 
53-6 
33-8 
56-4 
14-2 

22 

9 
40.1 
13 

i-5 
35 
21.4 
a 

19.1 

2 

16 

46 

13 
9 

21 

8.3 

2.5 

27 
8 
8 

'7-4 
ii 

37 
32 
57-7 
3-3 
203.9 
53-8 

2:i 
12.4 
23 

16.8 
22.5 
i? 
195-3 
73-7 
46.7 
21.5 
iS-5 
10.3 
85-1 
10.3 
50-5 
4-i 
48 

59-2 
ii 

39-5 
84-3 
M 
13 
27.7 
9.6 
41.7 

28.5 
52-3 
81.5 
62.5 
89.1 
20.9 
40 
18 
61.3 

22 

18 
37-7 

53-0 
23 
Si 
76.3 
92.8 

340-5 
92.8 

19 
i? 
31.2 

47-3 
3°-7 
45-7 
63 
27.0 
148.5 

102 

34-8 
34-3 
26.2 

143-7 
29.2 
64.8 
16.1 
86.5 
94-9 
25-5 
83-3 
199.3 
40.9 
38.8 
53.2 
24.5 
i°9-5 
131.6 
56 
67.8 
149.5 
113.5 
150.4 
47.3 
59.5 

5='5 
78.5 

37.5 
17 
7L5 
74-3 

21 

49.4 

"•S 
74.5 
88 
40 

f-S 
67 

17.1 
16.5 
81.5 

22 
22.5 

9.6 
205 
r4-3 
44-8 
42 
33-8 

1.16 
i  .00 
1.38 
i  .00 
i  08 

I.OO 

1.05 

.84 

1  .00 

I.OO 
I.OO 
I.OO 
I.OO 
I.OO 
I.OO 
I.  12 

•95 

I.OO 
I.IO 
I.OO 
I.OO 

1.04 

I.OO 
I.OO 

1-50 

I.  12 

1.07 

•  75 

1.25 

I.IO 

.84 

1.25 

I.OO 

•  75 
I.J3 

i.  ii 

I.OO 

i.  08 
1.18 
1.16 
i-34 
•92 
•93 

I.OO 

i.  20 
1.17 

I.OO 

1.16 

1.07 

I.OO 

1.25 

I.OO 
I.OO 
I.OO 

1.07 

I.OO 

•93 
1-25 

I.OO 

1.25 
1.14 

I.OO 

1.50 

I.OO 
I.OO 
I.OO 
I.OO 

2.68 
1.50 
2.87 

2.  l6 
2.OO 
2.22 
1-93 
2.OO 
2.OO 
1.50 
2.36 
2.OO 
2.OO 
2.OO 
2.32 
1.94 
2.  l6 
2.12 
1.50 
2.OO 
2.46 
1-50 
1.96 
2.25 
1.64 
2.07 
1.65 
2.32 

2.43 
1.63 
2.16 
2.27 
1.50 
2.28 
2.27 

2.15 
2.05 

2.45 
2.51 

2.6l 

i-93 
1.86 

2.OO 
2.30 

2.34 

2.25 

2  39 
2.16 
1-5° 
2.50 

2.OO 
2.OO 
2.OO 
2.l6 
2    OO 
1.63 
2.50 
2.50 
2.OO 
2.50 
2.OO 
3.00 
2.50 
2.25 
1.62 
2.OO 
2.OO 

2 

2 

Carroll  

4 
2 

4 

6 

15-5 

8 
•  5 
40 

13 
4 

•5 
•5 
3 

i 

Champaign. 
Christian   .. 
Clark  
Clay 

12 
4 
2 

I 

18 

5-5 
3 

24 
25 
8 

So 

IO 

Clinton  
Coles 

I 
I 

3 

5 

7 
»3 

12 
12 

29 

42 

3 
15 

IO 

7 

2 

3 
5-5 
4 
3 

5 

25 

i? 
9-25 

6 
4 

22 

2  5 

i 
3-5 

2 

6 
3 
4 
32 
35 
'3 

Crawford  .  . 
Cumberl'nd 
DeKalb.... 
DeWitt  .... 
Douglas  
DuPage... 
Edgar 

I 

6 
6 

2 
2 

I 

6 

4 
5 
4-5 

2 

5-5 

Fayette 

5 

i 

i 

26 

Fulton    .... 

2 

6.5 

8 
20 

2 

4 
30.5 

1O 

I 

7-5 

12 

6 

12 

22.S 

4-75 
5-5 
9-5 
2.5 
19 

4 

4 
2-5 

3-5 

2 

Greene  
Grundy  .... 
Hancock  .  .. 
Henderson. 
Henry  
Iroquois  .  .  . 

I 
2 

4 

2 

3 
3 

i 
3 
9 

i 

6-5 
6-5 

8 
26  " 

H 
24 

JoDaviess.  . 
Johnson  
Kane  

3 

3 
4 

2 

3-5 

7 
5 
15 

6-5 
3 
23 

Kendall.... 

2 

4 

6 

2 

2 

17 

9 
13 

6 

7 

LaSalle  

Lee  .       ... 

4 
5 

2 

3 

2 

3 

2 

3 

2-5 
3-5 
•  5 
2-5 

22 

3-5 
iS-5 
4 
15 

i 

10 

34-5 

"6.5 
6 
ii-5 

IO 
2 

17.5 

'7 

22 

6 

10 

8 
8-5 
5 
3 
6.5 

I 
I 
2 

I 

Livingston.  . 
Logan  
McDonough 
McHenry  .. 
McLean  

Macoupin  .  . 
Marshall  .  .  . 

I 
2 

i 

2 

6 

Mercer  .    .. 
Montgom'ry 

3 

I 

7-5 

'3 

3-5 

ii 

4 

2 

3 

II 
3 
14 
18 

9 
5 
'4 

2.8 

4 
9 
3 
6 

8.8 
i-5 
14 
13-5 
4-5 
5 
14 

2.8 
2 

8 

3 

2 
3.6 

15-1 
4 
20 

25 

I 
18 
7.6 
5 
30 
8 
7-5 

26.1 
7 
34 
43 
18 
ii 
32 
10.3 
9 
39 
ii 

'3-5 

2 
ID? 
IO 

33 
15 
16.9 

Moultrie  .  .  . 
Ogle    

I 

2 

i 

5 

i 

Piatt    .    .  . 

2 
2 

I 

3 

•  5 
•5 
.  i 
6 

21 

4 

2 

9-5 
3 

8 
7 
9-5 
i-5 
3 

12 
2 
3 

'•5 

3 
4 

•  5 
3 

Putnam  ... 
Randolph  .. 
Sangamon  .. 
Shelby  

St.  Clair  

Stephenson. 
Tazewell  .  .  . 
Vermilion  .  . 
Wabash  .... 
Warren  .... 

2 

I 
2 

I 

3 

i 

i 

23 
6 
5 

2 

3 

85     7 

i 

4 
4 
2-5 

40 
4 
14 
6 
6.1 

60 
2 

7 
6.1 

67 
6 

*9 
10.8 

60 
6 
16.3 
18 

II.  2 

Whiteside 

j 

Will  

4 

12 
12 
6 

i-5 

2 
2 

3 

i 

Winnebago. 
Woodford  .. 

I 

2 

i 

4 

Totals  and 
Averages. 

170 

165.8 

623.8 

583.8 

576 

47-5 

403-816 

924.2 

675-9 

1500.2 

1526.9 

2438.5 

4615-3 

1.09 

2.l8 

i.  Rent  y3  of  crop.  2.  Rent  |  of  crop.  3.  Rent  |  and  Viz  of  crop.  4.  Kent  %  of  crop.  5.  $52.00. 
6.  $24.00.  7.  Includes  labor  from  breaking  stalks  to  sowing.  8.  The  average  rent  per  acre  cannot  be  given, 
since  many  replies  gave  rent  as  fractional  part  of  crop.  9.  Besides  4  days'  labor  of  man  alone.  10.  Besides 


i898.] 


CORN    AND    OATS,    COST    OF    PRODUCTION,    1896. 


OF  OATS  IN  ILLINOIS  IN  1896. 


County. 

Number  of  replies. 

Cost  of  labor,  dolls. 

Rent 
of 

land 
per 
acre, 
dolls. 

Number  of  acres. 

Total 
cost 
of 
seed. 

Cost 
of 
twine, 
dolls. 

Cost 
of 
crop 
through 
hauling 
and 
thresh- 
ing, 
dolls. 

Number  of  bushels. 

Jost  of  crop 
through 
hauling  and 
threshing, 
dolls. 

Man. 

Man 
and 
team. 

Total. 

Per 

acre. 

Per 

bu. 

Adams  

3 

i 

2 
2 

4 

2 
12 

4 

2 
I 

.  2 

I 
2 

I 

6 
6 

i 
i 
i 
4 

( 

20.31 

II.  OO 

51.25 
32.00 
62.40 
3-25 
214.63 
45-33 
4-54 
2.77 
12.41 
23.00 
16.83 
22.46 
17.00 
219.81 

70.57 
46.69 

23-73 
15-50 
IO-33 
88.  61 
io-33 
50-50 

6.12 

54.00 
63-55 
8.25 
49-37 
93-19 
11.72 
16.25 
27.70 
7.22 

47-  '7 
87.85 
28.50 
56.82 
96.46 
73-iS 
119.97 
19-35 
37-25 
18.00 
73.60 
25-75 
S-oo 

21.  OO 

40.47 

142.11 
34-50 
146.50 
^52.50 
200.84 

12.  OO 
758.72 
I79.O2 
38.06 
SS.g2 
48.81 
111.87 
60.14 
91.32 
I26.OO 
625.50 
289.52 
221.10 
73.98 
51-37 
52.30 
354-27 
43-72 
127-43 
36.13 
142.55 
196.62 
42.12 
193.87 
484.36 
66.70 
84.07 
120.78 
36.67 

249-75 
298.92 
I2O.87 

139  -28 
367.07 
262.77 
393.64 
91-37 
110.75 
IOI.OO 

181.04 

87.75 
38.25 

171.50 

160  63 

162.42 
45-50 
197-75 
184.50 
263  .  24 
15-25 
953-35 
224.35 
42.60 
36.69 
61.22 
!34-87 
76.97 
113.78 
143.00 

845.31 
360.09 
267  .  79 
97.71 
66.87 
62.63 
442.88 
54-05 
177-93 
42-25 
196.55 
260.  17 
50.37 
243.24 
577-55 
78.42 
100.32 
148.48 

43-6? 

296.92 

386.77 
149-37 
196.10 

463-53 
33S-92 
513.61 
110.72 
148.00 
119.00 
254-64 
113.50 
43-25 
192.50 
201.30 
31-50 
156.07 
32.00 
183.00 
219.00 
106.24 

112.  OO 
139.62 
52.95 
52.50 
2O2.OO 
68.75 
60.37 
30.80 
673.00 
42.06 
105.85 
1  02.OO 
84.35 

4-50^ 

4-27 
3-33 

4-32 
i 

4.36 
3.00" 

3 
3 
2.OO 
5.00 
5.00 

3-43 
3-73' 
5.00* 
3-28 

2 

4-721 

2.00 
5-OO* 
2.25 
4.OO 
3.64 
4.83 
4.62 

3  .93" 
1.70' 
3-52 
2-75 
4-50 
4.18 
4-42* 
5.00* 

4-39 
3.66* 
4-83 
S.oo" 
5.00* 
4.20 
3-50 
5-00 
4-50 
4-00 
4-  So2 

4-57 

i 

4.24 

3.00 
4-50 
4.00 
2.50 
4.60 
3.65 
2.50 
2.90 
5.00 
5.00 

5.00 
4.00 
4.00 

2.OO 
5.00 

54 
27 
55 

IOO 

127 

10 

577 
94 
ii 
8 
40 
45 
23 
20 
30 
309 
227 
105 

11 

H 

274 

20 

66 
20 
167 

95 
60 

158 
275 

$ 

61 
15 
1  86 
165 
35 
129 
236 
ii- 
256 
57 

IOO 

5° 
119 
95 

20 

77 

112 
52 
IOO 

17 

96 

no 
7° 

85 
18 
15 
80 
40 
29 

260 
15 

87 
38 
4 

27.21 
13.60 
27.72 
50.40 
64.00 
5-04 
315.99 
50.40 
8.06 
4.03 
20.16 
25.20 
11.59 
20.16 
23-76 
J55-73 
123.48 
65.52 
17.64 
15.12 
10.08 
150.19 
10.08 
36.28 
10.08 
84.16 
47-88 
30.24 
79-63 
147.16 
19.64 
19.15 
30.28 
7.56 
93-74 
98.85 
27.72 
65-01 
28.50 
56.95 
138  09 
32.76 
50.40 
25.20 
59-97 
47.88 
ic.oi 
42.84 
56.44 
26.20 
51.20 
8.56 
48.38 
55-44 
35-28 

22.  6J 
42.94 
9.07 
7.56 
40.32 

20.  16 
14.61 
6.o< 
131.  0' 
7.56 
43.80 
I9-J5 

22.68 

7.90 
2-75 
11.50 
19.00 
M-75 

2.OO 
116.05 
l6.OO 

3-oo 
1.  20 

4.00 
13-40 

6.75 

5.25 

6.00 
76.50 
43-55 

22.  IO 
7.IO 
4-40 
2.80 
6o.OO 
2.50 
15-55 
1.20 
30.00 
I7-25 
14.00 
36.50 
53.98 
4-55 
5-00 
12.85 
1.  60 
42.40 
37-25 
12.  OO 
28.50 
45.32 
25-75 
55-65 
9.90 
19.50 
9-50 
I9.25 
I5-50 

5-oo 
14-50 
21.80 
5.00 

21.00 
3-50 
I4.2O 
12.25 
IO.25 

8.00 
17.00 
4.20 
3.00 
22.00 
4.00 
4.50 

2.OO 

35-00 
3-oo 
15.00 
7.00 

IO.OC 

440.53 
61.85 

471-97 
586.90 
890.79 
22.29 
3903.79 
545-75 
53-66 
41.92 
165.38 

398.47 
210.30 

139-  *9 
172.76 
2138.16 
1255.32 
755-41 
237-45 
86.39 
75-50 
1588.07 
106.63 
529.76 
98.53 
978.71 
671.70 
384.61 
1089.37 
'742.34 
143.61 

258.47 
359-71 
"3-33 
1212.06 
1115.87 
264.00 
855.96 

1  398-  73 
965.12 
1847.35 
378.38 
637.9° 
355-10 
928.86 
604.38 
138.33 
542.34 
79I-54 
138-70 
652.27 
44.06 
499-58 
781.69 
43'-77 
255-i8 
590-56 
13!  .92 
100.56 
496.82 
292.91 
224.48 
62.84 
2139.  0' 
112.62 
512.65 
204.15 
342-03 

1405 
300 
3100 
6050 
5250 
480 
21550 
2260 
240 
148 
800 
1696 
950 
619 
400 
14200 
7880 
3550 

I  IOO 

660 

2OO 
10753 
6OO 
3466 
800 
4850 
3180 
igOO 
6065 
II23I 
4l6 
9IO 
2355 
300 
7070 
6060 
IOOO 

4830 
8887 
4920 
13032 

1860 
4300 

2200 

4877 
2110 
800 
3620 
3890 
700 
3700 
1  2O 
3690 
3863 
22O5 
1150 
2!76 
500 
350 
3,l6 
I2OO 
IO42 
480 
7OOO 
500 
3I2O 
1250 
2850 

8.15 
3-44 
8.58 
5-86 
7.01 

3-71 
6.76 
5.80 
4.87 
5-24 
4-'3 
8.85 
9.14 
6-95 
5-75 
6.96 
5-53 
7.19 
6.78 
4-79 
5-39 
5-79 
5-33 

8.02 

4.92 
5-86 
7-07 
7-41 
6.89 
6-33 
4.22 
6.80 

5-9° 
7.62 

6.51 
6.76 
7-54 
6.63 
5.92 
8.54 
7.21 
6.63 

6.37 
7.11 
7.80 
6.36 
6.91 
7-04 
7.06 
3-96 
6.52 
4.00 

5-20 

7.10 
6.16 
5-67 
6.9* 
7-32 
6.70 

6.21 

7-32 
7-74 
7-85 

8.22 

7-50 

S.8P 

•  313 
•309 
•  152 
.097 
.169 

•077 
.181 
.241 

.222 
.283 
.206 
•235 
.221 
.224 
•431 
.150 
.156 
.212 
•215 
.130 

•377 
•'47 
.177 
-152 
.123 

.201 
.211 
•234 
.179 
•155 

•345 
.284 
.148 
•377 
.171 
.184 
.264 
•173 
•  '57 
.196 
.141 
.263 
.I48 
.161 
.190 
.286 
.172 

-149 
.203 

•  297 
.176 
•550 
-135 

.202 

•195 
.222 
.271 
.263 
.285 

-159 
-244 
-215 
.196 
.300 
.225 
.164 
.163 
.120 

.178 

Bond  

Cass  

Christian  

Clark  

Clay  

Clinton  

Coles  

Cook  

Crawford  
Cumberland  
DeKalb  

DeWitt  

Douglas  

DuPage  

Edgar      

Fayette    

Ford  

Franklin  

Fulton  

Greene  

Grundy  

Iroquois  

Jersey  

Johnson  

Kane 

Kankakee  
Kendall  

6 

Knox    

La  Salle,  

Lee  

Livingston  

McDonough  
McHenry  

Macon  

Macoupin  

2 

31-50 
123-45 
25.00 
149.00 
176.00 
88.87 

109.62 
42.62 

41.25 
163.00 
55-00 
45-oo 
28.80 
512.50 
32.06 
72.85 
84.00 
67.50 

Morgan  

2 

32.62 
7.00 

34.00 
43.00 
19  37 

II  .00 

30.00 

10.33 

II  .25 

39.00 
13.75 
15.37 

160.50 

IO.OO 

33-00 
18.00 
16.8 

Moultrie  

Ogle.  .  . 

3 

i 

2 

2 
I 
2 
2 

I7C 

Piatt  

Putnam  

Randolph  

Sangamon  

Shelby  

St.  Clair  

Vermilion  

Wabash  

Warren  

Whiteside  

Will  

Winnebago.  .  .  . 
Woodford  

5-37 
7.60 

Totals  and 
Averages  

2670.00 

10102.9 

12772.08 

8 

6176 

3274-32 

1213.70 

407  10  .  ic 

228132 

6-59 

days'  labor  of  man  alone,   ii.  One  day's  labor  of  man  alone.    12.  2%  days'  labor  of  man  alone.    13.  Besides 
jJi  dayt'  labor  of  man  alone.     14.  Besides  3  days'  labor  of  man  alone.    15.  Besides  14)*  days  of  man  alone. 


74 


BULLETIN    NO.   50. 


[February, 


a 


Q 


Cost  per  bushel 
through  husking. 

N    O\  M 

\o  in  a\ 

Cost  per  acre 
through  husking. 

o  ^  M 

u 

XI 

6 
~ 
£ 

i> 
vo^ 

3 
XI 

OO  GO    O~> 

a 
o 
h  -1-  be     wi 
^^.E     S 

O  O-*        S 

tn  J=    3        "O 
0  -X 

vj 

MOO      0 

O  ci  r-* 

M   q  rx 

\O    Is- 

5-d 

S  u 

0    U 

U  •" 

_rt 

"o 
13 

Q  OO  \O 

>O  ro  r** 

&£" 

Number  of  acres. 

O  moo 
c^oo 

Total  cost  of  labor 
through  husking. 

Tf    O   IO 

O\VO    « 

r^  Ov  10 
vo"  o  « 

Rate 
of  wages, 
dollars. 

st»i 

S1I 

:  ov  M 

;   O  00 

C 
rt 

S 

:'?'* 

Total  days'  labor, 
including  husking. 

8"rirT 

•<*-  CV1  -*f 

VO~  tf  i- 

1 
Husking. 

c*.  Ov  10 
10  ••)••* 

.£      Cultivating. 

£ 

ov  o  a 
•*•  * 

1  S 
^      Planting. 

00 

N    HI    O* 
N    -9-00 

vo  r^. 

«      Rolling. 

KRS 

.£> 

£      Harrowing. 

V 

t>.  O»  - 
O  vO    ON 

ONOO 

Disking. 

^Q 

rt 

vO  00*   * 

«       Plowing. 

€§£ 

Breaking 
stalks. 

ONOO  ""> 
\O   ro  « 
w  •«- 

Number  of  replies. 

w 

o. 
s 
o 
t, 

O 

of  counties.* 

Northern  
Central  
Southern  

O 


b£ 

1 

oo  ••*- 

8 

c  u 

"5  h/i 

J2  ~ 

00      M      « 

rt  c 

f^t  ^ 

cT^  rr) 

c 

JS 

rt 

|| 

•£•0 

c 
rt 

OvOO 
O    w    in 

"2  n 

*g 

0 

M 

H 

C  <* 

rt  2 

VO     M     CO 

evi  r^  t^ 

oil 

CVI    -  00 
00  vo 

C 

c 

« 

C    /. 

p 

c 

p 

Ovvo    I-. 

a 

rt 

«    OvOO 
<N    Ov  t^ 

31 

10  «'  CO 

M 

t^vO    CO 
CO  IN 

C 

c 

srl 

rt 

c 

c 

s'-g 

u 

Q. 

c 
rt 

S 

rt 

o?r™ 

s 

M    VO      •<• 

rt 

•a 

rt 

CO        10 

C 
rt 

Sowing. 

OSJOOv 

S 

«      M 

o 
o 

"?                ' 

— 

Rolling. 

S"00 

rt 
Q 

Harrowing. 

CO  CO  Ov 

Disking. 

•^•CO    M 

VO    0    n 

Plowing. 

1O  CO 
l^s  IO  Ov 

Breaking 

00 

stalks. 

1OOO    K 

Number  of  replies. 

a-B* 

V 

s-  s 

£     S 

O     ^ 

-8 

S_£ 

•IS-s 

>-    C   3 

o  «  o 

*                   ^ 

O  00    N 

acx 

fxOO    CO 

P  ^  ti 

H      l-l     0 

U^.g                  Pn 

U  3  "                rt 

S?S 

o                           u 

\O  'O    ^ 

-5              £ 

L4 

—      "u 

P 

*«      js  he      bi 

oo   r^.  T 

rovd  M 

^      "  ^      •£ 

N     « 

S     u"     S 

o  8  ^c 

D  °'5      "o 

ONOO   ro 

*-      -a 

VO   -•*• 

-  -"u      J3 

jfl 

H8"     ^ 

^""M 

"B""  i 

11* 

Z      ™ 

CO  <N 

Q 

u 

J 

D' 

4J          i/I 

Z 

c  rt      — 

H 

!tf  *•      "3 

Z 

V         ^J 

0 

D. 

O 

'tn 
H 

'rt 
_o 

111 

O 

4 

tc-^ 

O 



J3      .                     13 

'O   ^-  ON 

-S         Ss 

!1       s! 

ill 

0                         S 

10  CO 

u 

•«•  1^  Ov 

1 

00  CO    N 

-o 

SB 

V                             s    a 

bo                   S  u 

«.=«? 

0   0 

u  -o 
rt                          rt 

H?  o'oo 

<5 

Number  of  replies. 

,SR? 

1  i 

o    ^ 

0 

c    •  c 

^"3  « 

•S  £•£ 

1898.]  CORN    AND    OATS,   COST    OF    PRODUCTION.    1896.  75 

TABLE  4.     COST  OF  SEED  FOR  CORN  AND  OATS  IN  ILLINOIS  IN  1896. 


Corn. 

Oats. 

0 

O 

o 

0 

o 

O 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

en 

n> 

en 

n 

en 

rt 

en 

en 

en 

D-"- 

en 

a.  ~ 

Counties. 

12. 

2.  ° 

Counties. 

u 

-8, 

Counties. 

"SL 

2-8, 

Counties. 

12. 

0.  0 

en   [n 

p 

in   o) 

en   en 

en"  a 

o 

(D 

B 

'       n 

B 

a 

•    a> 

n 
a. 

1 

0. 

O> 
& 

n 
p. 

1 

5T 

a. 

01 

PI 

Boone  .  .  . 

3° 

4.OO 

Henry  .  .  . 

75 

8.25 

Boone  .  .  . 

30 

18.00 

Henry  .  .  . 

25 

15.62 

Bureau  .  . 

70 

IO.OO 

Iroquois  . 

37 

I.OO 

Bureau  .  . 

30 

15.00 

Iroquois  . 

25 

9-37 

Carroll  .  . 

30 

3.60 

43 

3.50 

Carroll  .  . 

22 

ii  .00 

45 

23-55 

55 

17.00 

Kane  .... 

170 

IO.OO 

25 

12.  OO 

Kane  .... 

1  60 

60.00 

Champaign  .  . 

80 

3.00 

Kankakee 

60 

9.00 

Champaign  .  . 

33 

20.00 

Kankakee 

40 

22.80 

90 

4.20 

70 

10.50 

90 

38.25 

60 

36.00 

70 

3.00 

La  Salle  . 

37 

5.00 

52 

28.00 

La  Salle.  . 

37 

19.38 

80 

2.88 

60 

2.70 

80 

24.00 

53 

25.00 

100 

8.00 

no 

I2.OO 

50 

3O.OO 

78 

39.60 

40 

3  .00 

Lee    .... 

22 

I  .  CO 

40 

24.00 

Lee  .    .  . 

40 

16.00 

Christian 

T 

95 

3.25 

Livingston  .  . 

no 

*  .J 

6.00 

Christian 

T 

80 

4O.OO 

Livingston  .  . 

V 

55 

27.00 

140 

7.20 

70 

2.50 

40 

iS.OO 

50 

30.00 

Clark.... 

40 

1-25 

Logan  .  .  . 

IOO 

4.20 

Clark.... 

6 

3.60 

Logan  .  .  . 

20 

IO.OO 

Coles  

70 

2.50 

65 

2.OO 

Coles  

20 

9-OO 

45 

30.00 

50 

2.IO 

Macon  .  . 

1  20 

9.00 

25 

15.00 

Macon  .  . 

65 

36.00 

Cumberland.  . 

65 

3.15 

Macoupin 

IOO 

3.50 

Cumberland.  . 

47 

30.OO 

Macoupin 

20 

IO.OO 

DeKalb.. 

80 

9.0O 

McDonongh  .  . 

75 

II  .00 

DeKalb.  . 

45 

24.30 

McDonongh  .  . 

40 

15.00 

5° 

I  .40 

McLean  . 

30 

1  .60 

34 

I5.0O 

McLean  . 

10 

8.75 

20 

3.00 

IO2 

4.00 

30 

iS.OO 

84 

50.00 

DeWitt  .  . 

105 

3.00 

Mercer  .  . 

55 

3.00 

DeWitt  .  . 

60 

22.50 

Mercer  .  . 

32 

18.00 

Douglas.  . 

IOO 

2.80 

Moultrie. 

IOO 

4.00 

Douglas.  . 

50 

20.0O 

Moultrie  . 

17 

9.00 

Edgar  .  .  . 

38 

3.80 

Ogle  .... 

50 

1.50 

Edgar  .  .  . 

20 

II  .OO 

Ogle  .... 

50 

20.00 

40 

i.  20 

40 

6.87 

IO 

8.40 

46 

13100 

Ford  

IOO 

4.00 

Piatt  

60 

3.20 

Ford  

7° 

3O.OO 

Piatt  

30 

14.00 

Fulton  .  . 

IOO 

7.00 

170 

5.28 

Fulton  ..  . 

60 

22.50 

80 

40.00 

Greene  .  . 

1  20 

3    4O 

Randolph 

2    2S 

Greene 

Randolph 

45 

22.50 

Grundy.  . 

165 

J  •  Tv 

II.OO 

Sangamon.  .  . 

33 

m,  .  *.  j 

6.27 

Grundy.  . 

105 

So.OO 

Sangamon.  .  . 

35 

'5-75 

Hancock  . 

60 

2.25 

80 

6.00 

Hancock. 

30 

13.50 

20 

9.00 

45 

3.50 

Stevenson  .  .  . 

4° 

2.OO 

25 

18.75 

Stevenson   .  . 

50 

32.00 

Henderson  .  . 

80 

6.00 

Tazewell. 

40 

2.IO 

Henderson  .  .  . 

20 

2O.OO 

Tazewell. 

40 

12.  OO 

Totals  

43€7 

287  .20 

Totals     

2636 

1329.12 

Average  price  per  bu          .    . 

20       C. 

Average  cost  of  seed,  per  acre. 

6/^  c 

Average  cost  of  seed,  per  acre. 

50)4  c. 

76  BULLETIN  NO.   50.  \Fcbruary,    1898 


ORGANIZATION. 


BOARD    OF    TRUSTEES,     UNIVERSITY    OF    ILLINOIS. 

FRANCIS  M.   McKAY,  Chicago,    President. 
JOHN  R.  TANNER,   Springfield,  Governor  of  Illinois. 
J.  IRVING  PEARCE,  Chicago,   President  State  Board  of  Agriculture. 
SAMUEL   M.    INGLIS,    Springfield,    Superintendent   Public    Instruction. 
NAPOLEON  B.   MORRISON,   Odin.         ALEXANDER  McLEAN,   Macomb. 
JAMES  E.   ARMSTRONG,  Chicago.          MRS.   LUCY  L.  FLOWER,  Chicago. 
ISAAC  S.   RAYMOND,  Sidney.  MRS.  MARY  T.  CARRIEL,  Jacksonville. 

SAMUEL  A.   BULLARD,   Springfield.      THOMAS  J.  SMITH,  Champaign. 

ADVISORY    BOARD    OF   THE    EXPERIMENT    STATION. 

THOMAS  J.   BURRILL,   PH.D.,  Urbana,  Prof,  of  Botany  and  Horticulture,  Pres. 
A.   D.  BARBER,   Hamilton,  of  State  Board  of  Agriculture. 

E.   A.   RIEHL,   Alton,  of  State  Horticultural  Society. 
H.  B.  CURLER,   DeKalb,  of  State  Dairymen's  Association. 

N.   B.   MORRISON,   Odin,  Trustee  of  the  University. 

ISAAC  S    RAYMOND,   Sidney,  Trustee  of  the  University. 

STEPHEN  A.  FORBES,  PH.D.,   Urbana,   Professor  of  Zoology. 

EUGENE  DAVENPORT,   M.AGR.,   Urbana,   Professor  of  Animal  Husbandry. 

THE  -STATION  STAFF. 

EUGENE  DAVENPORT,  M.AGR.,  Agriculturist,  Director. 
THOMAS  J.   BURRILL,   PH.D.,   Horticulturist  and  Botanist. 

CYRIL  GEORGE   HOPKINS,   M.S.,  Chemist. 

STEPHEN  A.  FORBES,  Pn.D  ,  Consulting  Entomologist. 

DONALD  McINTOSH,  V.S.,   Consulting  Veterinarian. 

GEORGE  P.  CLINTON,   M.S.,   Assistant  Botanist. 

P.  G.   HOLDEN,   M.S.,   Assistant  Agriculturist. 

WILBER  J.   FRASER,   B.S.,   Assistant  in  Dairying. 

JOSEPH  C.   BLAIR,   Assistant  Horticulturist. 

WILLIAM  L.   PILLSBURY,  A.M.,   Editor. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS-URBANA 


